zilberfrid

Aether wings to 40 Relictor to 90 Let that last one sink in. Comparable damage to a General (2"/1", 4/3 attacks, -1/-2 rend, mw chance for General), but better save, bravery, and a wizard. Also wounding all chaos and nighthaunt. And cheaper.

That's a good point, but GW has proven they can, with the Warpriest and it's mockery of life in the Sigmarite Luitenant.

Is this comment in the right thread? Having diverse models will not change the rules at all. Yeah, I should change my post to saying that I have said about what I have on my mind (naked celts excluding at that time). Excluding new people from the discussion is the opposite of what I want.

I'd say many Celts disagreed. Fighting naked is well recorded. Now they did bring big shields, of course.

I would agree that at least I have said everything that needed saying about the model line. I like the direction they are taking in facial features and gender. I have a few favourite directions I'd like them to take, and I have criticisms about faction design as a whole, but if GW decides to continue this variety with Disposessed, Ironweld Arsenal, Valaya dwarves/Root Kings, Fyreslayers, Freeguild or Wanderers/Kurnothi, I'd be thrilled. I have no bone on the lore, so I won't talk about that (though teasing female Kharadron with female Ancestor Masks and female Fyreslayers and not sculpting them is cruel and unusual punishment). I don't have sufficient knowledge about hiring practices, but do think that a more diverse team has an advantage to come with a more diverse model line. One thing that did surprise me, was the relatively, for the time, neutral tone of Wells. In "Floor Games" the text (afaik on the first page) is "The jolliest indoor games for boys and girls demand a floor." "Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books", doesn't sound all that neutral to our ears, but it's a time when women in the US, Britain, Germany, France and much of the rest of the world were not even allowed to vote. For me, the explicit inclusion of girls in both books, with it even being in the title of the book, screams that wargames, since their inception, were not just a hobby for males.

I would consider myself one that would be quite happy with that. And if you do want segregation, just ebay off the models you don't like, or trade them out. Of the Warcry bodies, the females were sold out on bits sites when I was looking for them, so there is a market.

I don't have children myself, but do have nieces and a nephew, as well as having been one, of course. Kids mirror things from TV and people they know quite a bit, when my sister caught her son saying " See, there's only boys playing with that, you can't have it!", she changed to subscription only so there wouldn't be adds anymore and her kids would feel more free to do as they wished. Her daughters happily play with toy machinery, and her son with dolls, and the other way around. My other sister, on the other hand, has made toys for both genders available, but her daughters prefer the more classic girl's toys (though with a rising interest in sciency things for the younger). My sisters were bullied at school because they scored high in strength bits at PE, which they could because they helped around on the farm and because they cared for their ponies. I am still baffled why being good at something warrants disdain. When my brother (in the '80's) wanted to start ballet, he was told they wouldn't teach boys. When he spoke about it in school, even the application was used to bully him for years. What I'm trying to say (except "kids are cruel") is that straying outside the norm is met with bullying, and it shapes kid's minds more than you might imagine.

They stated they'd continue to diversify, and with female Stormcast, the later Underworlds warbands and Warcry warbands, we see they were already on that track. As well as the recently deceased Warpriest that has been reanimated into sigmarite.

I am not at all convinced there are natural preferences in race, and the natural preference of genders is highly inflated by "what a girl/boy should be". This previously all-encompassing social engineering is finally getting reduced, but a lot of oldfashioned movies, books, people etc make reducing harder. We do see an increasing amount of women in historical fencing, which was largely a male endeavor, we see this in roleplaying, which also was quite male dominated, we see this in computer sciences, which used to be female dominated, was taken by males when it gained prestige, and is now getting a lot more equal again (and I always endeavor to have a mixed team when I am a supervisor, it leads to markedly better results). I've had to deal with customers that would not accept my female (or minority) team members' opinions, because it was a man's job. Both male and female customers, and this was in the Netherlands, which is considered quite progressive. I've listened to those conversations, and I really do understand if too much of that would bully someone out of that job. Because it's largely white male dominated now, we should work harder to make others feel welcome. We may sometimes not understand something because we miss context, or there's a bit of unspoken context someone else doesn't get and they won't understand something, but we can compensate by just trying harder.

Oh, I don't think we'll achieve full parity in my lifetime (if ever), but we have to at least try. And GW, finally, is trying.

Because this was always so. Which needs not to be true in the future. Just like roleplaying games have more women and non-caucasians in it compared to just 20 years ago, so too can wargames. And so to do wargames, as far as I hear from shop owners and, even if it's lagging behind RPG's. This could be because the big boy on the block in RPG's is D&D, which had about equal representation of women and existing representation of non-caucasian people in 3.0 in the Player's Handbook starting 20 years ago. Before that, it was very much a product of the '80's. GW wasn't as quick. It could also be a host of different reasons, like less willingness to commit a lot of time and money if you're not sure the community is welcoming, lore/fluff not hitting the spot, model design, etc. And there are those in the hobby that do not want women in 'their' hobby. When my ex was trying to enter the hobby, she was sent unsolicited pictures of genitals. After saying she didn't want that, it did not stop. She attributed that to social ineptness, but I suspect it was to make her uncomfortable. Eventually, after quite a while, she did tell and show the owner of the shop (and manager of the whatsapp group) about the two that would not stop and they got banned.

The women I've spoken to were more interested in Frostgrave than AoS Skirmish (in fact, I've a weekend planned with two tables, three men, two women), but it stradles the line between RPG and wargaming a lot more than Skirmish. The fact they explicitly could use any models (half of the models are current or previous RPG characters) really helps, and was a more of a deciding factor. We've looked through a few of mine to fill out the warbands, and that didn't feel too well. My Warhammer stuff is crossbowmen/guards to a too great extent, all male, and not that much racial diversity. The Atlantis dwarves are all in play though (not all painted though). That's not a market research, and it must be noted that I like Frostgrave better than AoS as well. A long way around to say that getting the models right isn't going to fix everything, but there is a reason my halfling sorceress (from chaos familiar succubus) and her mixed team of soldiers is going to see play, while most of my battlemages and guard stay in the box.

Female steam punk dwarves are something I cannot get anywhere, even from other miniature makers. I was very close to commisioning a few bodies and heads to print to be able to include a few. Though that Fyreslayer also looks fierce, and would be glorious.

If you see a face, facial features are racial and gendered, and with most outfits, the body is gendered as well. Now with some very old sculpts, the face hardly resembles a mammalian face, let alone any gender. And I do like the female Stormcast models (though not their shoes).

Because existing fans might also want to portray more diverse people? When the armies are more diverse, this may attract a more diverse crowd, but even if that fails, we'll have more interesting models.

You're talking about "Leftist" and generalising it as bad on one specific bit that is somewhat part of the discussion. I don't want to type more about it as it won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. I'd rather talk about models. When thinking about models, something like the Atlantis female dwarves, Frostgrave wizards or Soldiers 2 are warriors or wizards that happen to be female. With the Frostgrave set, you also have different facial features.

This is really putting politics in the thread. Please don't. Your replies fit too well with your username, and I'd really rather not be pushed to that correlation.

I'd say a Johann, Johanna or Chaohann on every sprue. Or a fleeing zombie.

I'd say the latter. But I don't have any ideas except the looks.

Yeah, AoS makes no logistical sense. What do people eat? Who's farming, how do prey animals replenish, etc? The taking off their own skin bit would make for a really bad time, infections, abrasion directly on the muscle, extreme chance of torn arteries. Compared to that kind of plot hole, there is no reason to make more diverse sets except the choice not to.

It would be in the PDF that'll be released later, of which I haven't seen anything reliable. I'd say 50/50 chances. It has points, which box batallions do not often have (Hammerheft's Prospectors for instance), but it's also a box batallion, which often isn't included.

At the moment, I can't do even a 1 in 7 (current US army) female inclusion in my units, because there aren't any GW options. If they start with half and half, I'll have to buy a new one for every two sets I now have to get close. Also, while females historically were kept out of wars between different humans, that's not a luxury your civilisation has in Warhammer. An invading army will erase your clan/tribe/city from existence, not levy some taxes and call it done. Training everyone to be able to defend themselves is neccessary. I don't think it's neccessary, logical or interesting to adhere to our collective memory of chivalric codes in model design. Bonus points, if you don't want female models of a new set, just put them on ebay, there'll be many people that will want to buy them (looking at availability of the female warband models on bits sites).

I agree entirely. They fit right in with Witch Elves (and to a lesser extent the rest of DoK), but I'm glad that's not all. Only with the reintroduction of Sisters of Battle would I think there's about an equal amount of female models outside of Escher and DoK as within these two.

Long flowing hair is hard, because it rests on or otherwise interacts with armour or other model bits, it works for single pose, but not multipose. For big hair, take a look at the Escher heads from Forgeworld. That is correct. I also purchased a set. It isn't kitted out with the most useful equipment, but I just felt like making a postapocalyptic punk band with weapons.

It's about models, which is quite relevant to the hobby. Existence of females, non-caucasian facial features and darker skin tones isn't political.